No, the court did not hear it (Isaid that in my post) for the reasons given by the court... NO STANDING by the people presenting.
So now a soldier that complies with his sworn constitutional duty is un-American. How sweet of you. Do you have ANY proof that Obama is eligible to hold office under the constitutional requirements... I believe the reward for that proof is several hundred thousand dollars now... Funny that a ten dollar document can't be produced. On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Fritz da Cat <[email protected]>wrote: > > *NO, the USSC has said no such thing. They have said that people up to > now > that have brought suit before them had no standing... they have never > even > addressed the issue. * > > BULLSHIT. The Supreme Court's refusal to even hear it sets the > precedent. Now court martial this disgrace to the U.S. Army Reserves, > Major Cook who is also a disgrace to America and Americans. You > birthers really do know how to show your asolute ant total ignorance > and stupidity. > > On Jul 16, 5:19 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > NO, the USSC has said no such thing. They have said that people up to now > > that have brought suit before them had no standing... they have never > even > > addressed the issue. > > > > a little more accuracy and a lot less posturing/spinning please > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Fritz da Cat <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Until Obama is convicted for anything Obama is still the COMMANDER IN > > > CHIEF. Also the case is baseless. The Us Supreme Court has said so > > > either twice or even three times now. > > > > > On Jul 16, 5:03 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What would the charge be ?? Possibly refusing to follow what he > believed > > > to > > > > be an unlawful order ?? Maybe calling attention to that pesky paper > and > > > the > > > > requisites not yet proven by Obama ?? > > > > > > The man with a suit to file is Major Cook. If the government is > implicit > > > in > > > > his being fired (civilian job) the man will (and should) make > millions. > > > > > > If his career was ended for standing up and following his sworn duty > as > > > an > > > > officer to protect and defend the constitution against the politics > > > > involved he should be promoted. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Fritz da Cat < > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Major Cook has > > > > > cooked his own goose. He should now be court martialed. > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 11:21 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Frederick, > > > > > > > > IF Obama is found not to be "natural born" that means that any > order > > > he > > > > > gave > > > > > > as CIC was fraudulent at the time it was given. There is but ONE > > > solution > > > > > to > > > > > > the problem ..... do as EVERY President has done prior .... > release > > > the > > > > > > documents having to do with his birth and upbringing. Short of > his > > > > > proving > > > > > > his eligibility to be CIC doubt exists and that doubt is > reasonable. > > > To > > > > > > refuse orders when you doubt the fitness to serve of a senior > officer > > > is > > > > > > within the scope his sworn duty. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Frederick The Moderate < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sage, > > > > > > > As far as this issue goes, I'm not asserting that Obama will > never > > > be > > > > > > > kicked out of office for being there illegally (although I'd > bet on > > > > > > > it!). So let's say that eventually happens. Guess what? UNTIL > it > > > > > > > happens, every order he issues is a lawful standing order. And > as > > > > > > > those who for obvious reasons, have never served and yet, love > to > > > spew > > > > > > > their stupidity are unaware, American servicemen and women ARE > > > > > > > government property. Legally. We had a petty officer get a > tattoo > > > on > > > > > > > his forehead (he was drunk). At Captain's Mast (minor trial), > he > > > was > > > > > > > found guilty of "defacing GOVERNMENT PROPERTY". That's what you > > > sign > > > > > > > up for. Which means that until Obama is found guilty of > something > > > in a > > > > > > > court of law, his orders are lawful. And here's the kicker: > After > > > > > > > that, they are STILL lawful unless modified by a new CIC. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 11:01 am, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Obama and his entourage are being a > > > divisive > > > > > > > > cancer to the defense of the country by refusing to present a > > > legal > > > > > > > > document to prove where he was born. Seems to me if he put up > > > > > everyone > > > > > > > > would shut up. > > > > > > > > There is a long list of papers & writings that have been > hidden > > > by > > > > > > > > them as it relates to Hussein ( the socialist ) Obama. > > > > > > ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 1:45 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >His refusal is not based on rumor.... it is based on an > > > absolute > > > > > lack > > > > > > > > > > > of proven fact. > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that would stand up at a military trial. > > > Regardless > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > his or my doubts about Obama's origins, the court would > > > probably > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > that he cannot disobey orders based on something unproven. > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 12:40 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > His refusal is not based on rumor.... it is based on an > > > absolute > > > > > lack > > > > > > > > > > of proven fact. He swore to defend the constitution and > based > > > on > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > to follow lawful orders... those were the terms of his > > > employment > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > the Army, Aren't the requirements for POTUS/CIC written > in > > > black > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > white in that document ?? Or is it that you have no use > for > > > the > > > > > > > > > > constitution ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > If I walk up to him wearing a generals or colenels > uniform > > > and > > > > > give > > > > > > > > > > him an order should he follow that order when he knows or > > > truly > > > > > > > thinks > > > > > > > > > > I am not a real general ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 9:43 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is it that you libbies get such delight in the > > > government > > > > > > > ruining > > > > > > > > > > > peoples lives for political purposes? This guy clearly > had > > > no > > > > > > > standing > > > > > > > > > > > to refuse orders as he cannot claim, based on > > > unsubstantiated > > > > > > > rumors, > > > > > > > > > > > that the commander in chief is a fraud. He should be > > > treated as > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > soldier refusing orders. Not have someone get him > fired. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 9:52 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > db you're laughable. Every soldier is required to > obey an > > > > > order > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > their superior officer and I guarantee that someone > > > between > > > > > Obama > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > this guy, ordered him to go. But that's okay, they > had > > > this > > > > > guy's > > > > > > > > > > > > sentence figured the moment he filed. Instead of > going > > > > > through > > > > > > > all the > > > > > > > > > > > > legal bs, they just revoked his security clearance. > Guess > > > > > what > > > > > > > kind of > > > > > > > > > > > > company he works for? Defense contractor. Makes > pretty > > > good > > > > > money > > > > > > > too! > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, he used to, anyway. Hope his lawyer got paid in > > > > > advance... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny thing though. When that soldier refused to go > to > > > Iraq > > > > > in > > > > > > > 2006 > > > > > > > > > > > > because the WPA made clear that Bush's war was > illegal, > > > all > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > Conservatives and GOP called him a traitor and touted > how > > > a > > > > > > > soldiers > > > > > > > > > > > > duty should never be interefered with by politics and > > > Rush > > > > > > > Limbaugh > > > > > > > > > > > > brought up the point that, if that were allowed, half > our > > > > > armed > > > > > > > forces > > > > > > > > > > > > could refuse to fight at any given moment etc... > Funny > > > how > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion of a soldiers' duty has changed (rather > > > > > hypocritically) > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > > > > that the politics are on the other foot... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 7:35 am, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not talking about the courts, but the military. > By > > > > > > > "revoking" a > > > > > > > > > > > > > standing order without explanation or qualification > can > > > > > only > > > > > > > mean one > > > > > > > > > > > > > thing: the order was unlawful. And since the > standing > > > order > > > > > was > > > > > > > issued > > > > > > > > > > > > > by the POTUS, the POTUS must be deemed unlawful, > > > therefore > > > > > > > defacto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the Constitution, there is no provision > for > > > > > enforcing > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > "natural born citizen" rule as it pertains to the > > > president > > > > > - > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pennsylvania district court previously pointed out, > > > > > > > paraphrasing; > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Take the remedy up with the legislative." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More importantly, no US court has entertained the > > > material > > > > > > > facts in > > > > > > > > > > > > > this/these cases, citing instead the plaintiff's > lack > > > of > > > > > > > "standing." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The military certainly has "standing," although > they're > > > now > > > > > > > beyond the > > > > > > > > > > > > > court's jurisdiction. The military may, at their > > > > > discretion, > > > > > > > challenge > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Commander-in-Chief via an emergency hearing in > > > front of > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > Supreme Court. Or not, since there is no civilian > law > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > > books to > > > > > > > > > > > > > challenge the CIC's citizenship. But there is the > > > lawful > > > > > > > requirement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The civilian courts may choose ignore, potentially > > > inviting > > > > > a > > > > > > > lawful > > > > > > > > > > > > > military takeover. The military may also choose to > > > ignore > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > underlying factor of the revocation, and risk an > > > avalanche > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > additional challenges. Or, speaking plainly, use > the > > > > > revocation > > > > > > > to run > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obama out of office because he's not a citizen as > > > required > > > > > by > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constitution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 9:41 am, Hollywood < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > d.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't be so fast. We all know the requirements > for > > > > > running > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
